This is in response to the column written by Paul Thompson. I do agree that the current status of our television credibility is obviously skewed one way or another.

Besides the two largest news agencies, where else does the author get his information, the BBC? That's even worse in some cases.

Does the author remember the Dan Rather blunder? That's the true definition of false reporting. Was the author smart enough to not accept it prematurely as fact?

I hope so. I disagree with the author that Hugo Chavez has anything at all important to say. Did you know that your liberal friends in Congress totally bashed him and think he has nothing worthwhile to say? The author needs to learn to listen to the news with a grain of salt.

If you listen close enough, everything is the same; it is how you interpret it that makes the difference. There is no way to have news be unbiased.

It all depends on who is doing the reporting. There are hard facts. Clinton had his chances. At least Bush decided to finally act.